|
Forget about wood specifically for a moment, and just consider Sculpture in general. To avoid confusion, and for the sake of brevity I will refer to the two major existing divisions in the art world, three dimensional and two dimensional work, as sculpture and painting respectively; as these are the most common incarnations. In order to gain an appreciation of the three dimensional aspects that make sculpture distinct from it's counterpart of two dimensional painting and drawing, it is perhaps best to begin by examining the inherent differences between them. Although many are obvious, as you will see the differences are not just the those which remain apparent in the resulting image, but exist in the artists approach to the work he is representing as well. The difference in approach is largely determined by restrictions which are imposed on the artist by the media itself. This can be simplistically illustrated if you could for a second imagine trying to make a sculpture using paint alone, or painting on a canvass using stone or clay. Since the use of these materials for other than there intended purpose is inconceivable, so you must understand and appreciate the vast chasm that exists between the mind set of the individual in his approach using his media of choice, to that of his counterpart. It can only stand to reason then, that the choices one makes, in the creative process of his artwork, is likely to be as radically different as the materials he works with.
This assumption becomes even more evident when you contrast a single artists work, who chooses to work in both two dimensional as well as three dimensional media. In most
cases it is impossible, without prior knowledge, to trace authorship of both sculpture and painting back to the same artist through a characteristic style (see Illus. I&II). When
this is possible it is usually because the artist has made a concerted effort to make it so, rather than by happenstance.
The reverse could also occur, wherein for whatever reason, an artist should make a purposeful attempt to make each work so disparate in style as to render them untraceable to himself except by signature alone. I personally know of no case where this has happened except as in the case of a forger of artwork. But the success this crime has enjoyed is testimony that it can be done. In any case the transference of an artists personal or signature style is more difficult if not impossible to accomplish across media boundaries, because of the demands the media places on the artists approach. For this reason, it is essential to the appreciation of both painting and sculpture to realize that the variant in resulting image, is not due just to differences inherent to the use of the respective materials determined by the media, but rather the different thought process that that media evoked in it's creator.
In can be rightly concluded that the media itself, by it's limitations, plays the greater part in the outcome of the work of art;
perhaps more than the artist would like to admit. Considering this fact, it should become apparent that sculpture is more confining then painting in most respects.
To illustrate some of the limitations the sculptor must contend with lets begin with one I consider to be major to the artists freedom of composition. I refer to the artist to compose a work which would require a suspended object.
While this is without difficulty for the 2d artist it is impossible for the sculptor to execute within his composition. This is due to the simple fact that the sculptor works with "real space" while for the painter it is illusionary space. This becomes no less obvious then when one considers the prospect of creating a bird flying in the sky. The bird can be done in a flying posture in sculpture but it cannot be suspended in space without a visible attachment to something. Even if accomplished by the most masterful execution, with the most discreet connection, it can in the end, at best, only suggest flight. The illusion is shattered by the physical connection by whatever device. The painted bird in the painted sky, however; can accomplish the illusion with the greatest of ease in a most believable way. The incredible power the painter has in conveying the image of a bird by it's positioning can be further exemplified by the fact that the painter does not need to fuss with making bird look very much like a bird. In most cases the simple "V" shape most of us leaned in kindergarten will suffice. The reason for this is the simple logical leap that the mind makes to determine what it "sees" on the basis of location. The mind only looks for identifiable shapes in the sky from the memory pool of things it has seen in the sky before. The sculptor does not have the luxury of using the sky as part of his pallet, and must devise other methods by which to construct his illusion, or otherwise not go there at all.
Of course as you might have already noticed there is a distance factor at work here as well.
Another advantage to the painter is that he controls the distance a which an object is viewed. What a luxury! Take the case of the bird in the sky. You will never get any closer then the artist has intended. Stepping closer to the painting will not enhance visual aspects that would in real life make the bird more identifiable as a bird. The painter has no worry of anyone ever pulling out a pair of binoculars or a magnifying glass to see the detail in the feathers. For in the given distance he has prescribed on his canvas: in reality, if you were standing inside the actual painting, it would not allow you to take a closer examination as well. In truth, taking this a step further and using another 2d medium... photography, you would most likely have little better detail of a bird against the sky than that presented by the painter.
In a painting, you are in the hands of the painter. You as the viewer cannot change the perspective, the point of view, or the lighting. This is not the case with sculpture.
In effect, sculpture is more interactive than painting. You move, and the sculpture changes.
If the lighting is changed, the sculpture changes. Put the sculpture in a different environment, and the sculpture changes. You touch it and it responds to reinforce what you see.
In actuality too much detail can detract from the focus of the painting itself. It can distract the viewers attention away from the central subject of the artists intent.
If you consider the example of the bird in the sky again. If it were fully rendered in every detail it might cause undue viewer attention. Particularly if it were meant to create nothing more than added ambiance to the central subject of the artist's statement. The sculptor, on the other hand does not control the distance from which his work is viewed, and therefore along with having to "ground" his flying bird, he must always give careful consideration to the accuracy of the attachment of all it's appendages. In short his bird must be exact, his viewers will demand it if the intent is pointed toward realistic figurative sculpture. This is so even when the bird is not the central subject in the sculptor's composition. The sculptor has but two options with the bird: To present it in exacting detail or turn to an abstract representation. Of course if the latter is his intent the constriction of detail is thrown out all together. Once again you can see from this, the more restrictive nature of working in the medium of sculpture, as opposed to the freedom inherent with painting.
The painter has power to place an object in virtually any setting and at the same time fix the distance from which it is viewed.
Yet as if this were not enough... the painter has, as well, the luxury of fixing the point of view, the perspective, depth of view, and the lighting direction and intensity. All of which are beyond the control of the sculptor. In point of fact the painter enjoys having near complete control over what his viewer sees. About the only thing beyond his control is how the work is displayed after it is completed. The height at which it is hung on the wall, the amount of light illuminating the surface, and the distance the viewer is able to stand away from the work, are all factors that could affect the artists statement. Understanding these attributes and how they favor the freedom of composition for the painter, or two- dimensional artist to create; are essential in understanding how their absence, imposes limitations upon the sculptor. Once understood, you should become more aware of the individual challenges the three dimensional artist has to deal with, which are unique to the sculpture process.
I make no attempt to here to elevate the stature of sculpture above that of painting.
I am foremost a sculptor in practice, but I an nearly as attracted to painting as well. In fact all of my college work was in painting. I enjoy both media for there individual restrictions as well as their liberties. The restrictions imposed by the individual media, challenge the creative notion in a problem solving way. For me the creative process is closely related to scientific discovery. I iniciate each work in an almost analytical way, as a continuous problem solving experience. I approach each piece I do as a series of corrections. These corrections are being made upon the media at hand, so that it will conform to the mental image I have loosely grasped in my mind. When you consider this explanation, it is fair to say that because of the restrictions inherent in the sculpture medium sited above; sculpture is more daunting than paint in accomplishing this image. Here again I must say the word is "daunting". One might too easily jump to the conclusion that I am implying that sculpture is more difficult to accomplish than painting, and therefore superior to it. That's a far to simplistic inference to be drawn from my statement. I might better use a visual reference of the difference I am trying to describe between these to forms of art.
Consider a car and a bulldozer. Both of these vehicles are suitably designed for obvious different uses. One would never consider putting a blade on a passenger car and use it to move
dirt. No more than he would
jump into a bulldozer to drive coast to coast across the U.S.. This is what I am trying to say when I describe the differences between 2D and 3D art. A sculptor will never carve a scene of grapes ripening in a vineyard. And a painter will never paint both sides of a horse in the same painting. These rules are only self-evident and obvious, after the statement of the fact. We are not consciously aware of these underpinnings even in our awareness of the one obvious difference between two dimensional and three dimensional art... The third dimension.
|
